← New search

2013 Honda CR-V

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2013 Honda CR-V do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 400.5.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

259 reports with mileage · 123 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Engine. Review the 97 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 95 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 38 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

22 crash reports0 fire reports11 injury reports

Vehicle Speed Control complaints

26 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Apr 18, 2014
Power TrainVehicle Speed ControlCrash

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF A VEHICLE WHICH CAN DRIVE ITSELF AT 7 - 14 MPH, FASTER IN REVERSE THAN FORWARD, WITHOUT ANYONE TOUCHING THE ACCELERATOR. I WAS PARKED IN MY 2 MONTH OLD CRV ON MY (LEVEL) DRIVEWAY ON A CLEAR DAY. I PUT THE CAR IN REVERSE, TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE, STARTED TO TURN TO LOOK BEHIND ME, HAD TO GRAB…

Read full complaint

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF A VEHICLE WHICH CAN DRIVE ITSELF AT 7 - 14 MPH, FASTER IN REVERSE THAN FORWARD, WITHOUT ANYONE TOUCHING THE ACCELERATOR. I WAS PARKED IN MY 2 MONTH OLD CRV ON MY (LEVEL) DRIVEWAY ON A CLEAR DAY. I PUT THE CAR IN REVERSE, TOOK MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE, STARTED TO TURN TO LOOK BEHIND ME, HAD TO GRAB A BAG IN THE PASSENGER SEAT AND HAD NOT YET TOUCHED THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WHEN MY CAR CAME UP AGAINST ANOTHER VEHICLE WHICH WAS PARKED HALF WAY DOWN THE DRIVE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT I HAD HIT A DOG OR A CHILD, SOMETHING THAT MOVED TOWARD ME. I HAD NO REASON TO THINK A CAR COULD TRAVEL THAT FAST AND ON ITS OWN. IT CAUSED $886.00 IN 'MINOR' DAMAGE IN LESS THAN 3 SECONDS. THIS SELF-PROPELLING FEATURE WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE MANUAL (WHICH I DID READ) NOR BY THE DEALERSHIP, WHO LATER TOLD ME THE VEHICLE WAS FUNCTIONING WITHIN SPECS AND THIS MOVEMENT WAS TO BE EXPECTED. AFTER POLLING 20 PEOPLE I UNDERSTOOD THERE ARE CARS WHICH 'CREEP' ONCE IN GEAR, SO I BORROWED 3 DIFFERENT VEHICLES TO TEST. FIRST I TRIED MY CAR. FROM A DEAD STOP, I REMOVED MY FOOT FROM THE BRAKE AND THE CAR PROPELLED ITSELF AT 7- 14 MPH (900-1200 RPM) FOR 1/2 MILE THROUGH MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I REPEATED THE TRIAL AFTER THE CAR WAS WARMED UP. NO CHANGE. THEN I TESTED A 2014 FORD FOCUS, A 2008 LINCOLN MKZ, AND A 2013 CHEVROLET EQUINOX: SAME ROUTE AND CONDITIONS, NONE MOVED FASTER THAN 2-4 MPH. I LATER TEST DROVE A 2014 CRV AND IT ACCELERATES FASTER THAN MY 2013. I HAVE TO KEEP MY FOOT DEPRESSING THE BRAKE DURING SLOW TRAFFIC BECAUSE THE CAR MOVES BEFORE I FULLY RELEASE THE PEDDLE. THIS MEANS THE BRAKES ARE LIKELY TO WEAR OUT FASTER. I CAN'T BE SURE HOW THIS EFFECTS THE EXPECTED DECELERATION ONCE THE ACCELERATOR IS RELEASED. I FEEL THIS IDLE SPEED IS SIMPLY TO FAST TO BE DEEMED SAFE.

NHTSA ODI #10584823

2,320 miles · Oct 29, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed ControlCrash

CORRECT RECALL ON SOME CRV - IF THE GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED FROM THE PARK POSITION WITHOUT PRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL IT CAN ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO ROLL AWAY, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH. ACCIDENT I STOPPED MY CAR THOUGHT I PUT IT IN PARK AND LEFT IT RUNNING TO PUT UP A GARAGE SALE SIGN. THE NEXT THING I KNOW MY CAR WAS DRIV…

Read full complaint

CORRECT RECALL ON SOME CRV - IF THE GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED FROM THE PARK POSITION WITHOUT PRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL IT CAN ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO ROLL AWAY, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH. ACCIDENT I STOPPED MY CAR THOUGHT I PUT IT IN PARK AND LEFT IT RUNNING TO PUT UP A GARAGE SALE SIGN. THE NEXT THING I KNOW MY CAR WAS DRIVING AWAY BY ITSELF LIKE SOMEONE JUMPED IN THE CAR. I WAS OUT OF THE CAR AND ABOUT 10 FEET BEHIND THE CAR WHEN THE CAR STARTED TO MOVE. THE CAR WAS NOT ON A HILL BUT JUST STARTED GOING. THERE WAS NO WAY I COULD STOP IT AND THANK GOD IT HIT A MAILBOX THAT WAS IN A TUB OF CEMENT WHICH STOPPED THE CAR. IF IT DID NOT HIT THIS IT COULD OF KEEP GOING AND HIT SOMEONE ELSE OR SOMEONE ON THE MAIN ROAD ROUTE 46 IN MINE HILL. I AM AFRAID TO EVEN DRIVE IT WHEN I GET IT BACK. THIS IS A LEASED CAR AND I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE I HAD TO HAVE THIS HAPPEN. OF COURSE I GOT A TICKET. I AM CONCERNED SINCE I WOULD NOT LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN TO ANYONE ELSE SOMEONE COULD OF BEEN KILLED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10549995

Mileage unknown · Oct 11, 2013
EngineVehicle Speed Control

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT MOSTLY FROM A STOPPED POSITION, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER, WHO STATED THAT THE THROTTLE WIRE CABLE WAS NON-EXISTENT AND THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM WAS CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO STALL. THE DEALER STATED THE MANUFACTURER WA…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT MOSTLY FROM A STOPPED POSITION, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A DEALER, WHO STATED THAT THE THROTTLE WIRE CABLE WAS NON-EXISTENT AND THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM WAS CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO STALL. THE DEALER STATED THE MANUFACTURER WAS AWARE OF THE ISSUE BUT AT THE TIME, THE ENGINEERS DID NOT HAVE A REMEDY AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER AND FILED A COMPLAINT. UPDATED 11-18-13 *BF

NHTSA ODI #10547631

2,218 miles · Sep 19, 2013
EngineFuel/propulsion SystemVehicle Speed ControlCrashInjury

WHILE TRAVELING IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC, I WAS FULLY STOPPED WITH MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE PEDDLE. SUDDENLY I HEARD & FELT THE ENGINE OF MY CAR REVVING UP. MY CAR CATAPULTED FORWARD ABOUT 20 FEET HITTING THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. I APPLIED MORE PRESSURE ON THE BRAKE PEDDLE BUT COULD NOT STOP THE FORWARD MOMENTUM OF MY CAR. BOTH CARS SU…

Read full complaint

WHILE TRAVELING IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC, I WAS FULLY STOPPED WITH MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE PEDDLE. SUDDENLY I HEARD & FELT THE ENGINE OF MY CAR REVVING UP. MY CAR CATAPULTED FORWARD ABOUT 20 FEET HITTING THE CAR IN FRONT OF ME. I APPLIED MORE PRESSURE ON THE BRAKE PEDDLE BUT COULD NOT STOP THE FORWARD MOMENTUM OF MY CAR. BOTH CARS SUSTAINED DAMAGE. THE OTHER DRIVER WAS TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL IN AN AMBULANCE BECAUSE SHE COMPLAINED OF HEAD, NECK & BACK PAIN. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10544412

4,000 miles · Jul 22, 2013
Vehicle Speed Control

I HAVE A 2013 HONDA CRV. ABOUT 20% OF THE TIME WHEN I PUT ON THE CRUISE CONTROL THE CAR WILL START ACCELERATING QUICKLY - GOING FROM ABOUT 55 MPH TO 70 MPH WITHIN 10 SECONDS OR SO. PUSHING THE CANCEL BUTTON DOES NOTHING. I HAVE TO STEP ON THE BRAKES TO DISENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL. THE MAIN HIGHWAY OUT OF TOWN HAS A SPEED LI…

Read full complaint

I HAVE A 2013 HONDA CRV. ABOUT 20% OF THE TIME WHEN I PUT ON THE CRUISE CONTROL THE CAR WILL START ACCELERATING QUICKLY - GOING FROM ABOUT 55 MPH TO 70 MPH WITHIN 10 SECONDS OR SO. PUSHING THE CANCEL BUTTON DOES NOTHING. I HAVE TO STEP ON THE BRAKES TO DISENGAGE THE CRUISE CONTROL. THE MAIN HIGHWAY OUT OF TOWN HAS A SPEED LIMIT OF 55 MPH. IF I DON'T WATCH CLOSELY TO MAKE SURE THE CAR WON'T ACCELERATE I CAN BE UP TO 70 MPH QUICKLY AND I DOUBT A POLICE OFFICER WOULD BELIEVE MY EXPLANATION. FORTUNATELY I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A SPEEDING TICKET. THIS WAS NOT A PROBLEM WHEN I FIRST GOT THE CAR FOUR MONTHS AGO. IT STARTED ABOUT ONE MONTH AGO. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10526250

1,999 miles · May 31, 2013
Vehicle Speed ControlCrash

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE PARKING, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND CRASHED INTO A CEMENT PARKING CHOCK AND THEN INTO THE VEHICLE THAT WAS PARKED NEXT TO THE PARKING CHOCK. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE THE CONTACT…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 HONDA CR-V. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE PARKING, THE VEHICLE ACCELERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND CRASHED INTO A CEMENT PARKING CHOCK AND THEN INTO THE VEHICLE THAT WAS PARKED NEXT TO THE PARKING CHOCK. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR DIAGNOSIS WHERE THE CONTACT WAS AWAITING THE RESULTS. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 1,999.

NHTSA ODI #10514469

Official recalls

2

23V858000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:fuel Pump

Dec 18, 2023

Honda (American Honda Motor Co.) is recalling certain 2013-2023 Honda Accord, Civic Coupe, Civic Sedan, Civic Hatchback, Civic Type R, CR-V, HR-V, Ridgeline, Odyssey, Acura ILX, MDX, MDX Hybrid, RDX, RLX, TLX, 2019-2022 Honda Insight, Passport, 2020 Honda CR-V Hybrid, 2018-2019 Honda Clarity PHEV, Fit, and 2015-2020 Honda Accord Hybrid, Pilot, Acura NSX vehicles. The fuel pump inside the fuel tank may fail.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: Fuel pump failure can cause an engine stall while driving, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Dealers will replace the fuel pump module, free of charge. Owner letters were mailed September 6, 2024. Owners may contact Honda customer service at 1-888-234-2138. Honda's numbers for this recall are KGC and KGD. This recall is an expansion of NHTSA recall numbers 21V-215 and 20V-314.

13V143000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission

Apr 15, 2013

Honda is recalling certain model year 2012-2013 CR-V, Odyssey, and model year 2013 Acura RDX vehicles. During sub-freezing temperatures, the brake-shift interlock blocking mechanism may become slow and allow the gear selector to be moved from the Park position without pressing the brake pedal. As such, these vehicles fail to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, "Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention."

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: If the gear selector is moved from the park position without pressing the brake pedal it can allow the vehicle to roll away, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Honda will notify owners and instruct them to take their vehicle to a Honda or Acura dealer. The dealer will install an updated brake shift interlock blocking mechanism free of charge. The recall began on May 13, 2013. Owners may contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009. Honda's campaign recall numbers are S96, S97, and S98.

Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

NHTSA investigations

2

EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture

Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied

Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

EA19001 · Electrical Overstress

Opened Apr 19, 2019 · Closed Sep 19, 2024

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags: Air Bag/restraint Control Module

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation to determine if the failure of airbags to deploy during severe crashes, in certain vehicles, was the result of a safety related defect.  During the investigation a complex failure was studied that can result in non-deployment of subject vehicle air bags and other restraint system devices in severe crash events. The subject vehicles may be equipped with an airbag control unit (ACU) for the supplemental restraint system (SRS) Electronic Control Unit (ECU) manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The ECU receives signals from crash sensors mounted in the vehicle and deploys the vehicle air bags and seat belt pretensioners in accordance with manufacturer design specifications.  The ECU in the subject vehicles contains a model DS84 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) which controls the communication of the crash sensor signal, firing commands (i.e., when to deploy the airbag(s) and/or pretensioners), and fault information (e.g., diagnostic trouble codes). In September 2016, FCA announced recall 16V-668 for certain model year (MY) 2010 to 2014 Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep products manufactured with the subject ZF-TRW ACU.  In this recall, FCA discussed an EOS condition that resulted in a failure of the subject DS84 ASIC, which caused air bag non-deployment.  FCA noted that the defect condition had only been observed in vehicles equipped with sensor harnessing routed across the front of the vehicle.  Other FCA vehicles that also used the subject ACU, but were not equipped with cross-car harnessing, had not experienced EOS failures, despite similar time in service. During the course of this investigation, ODI sent two separate Information Request (IR) letters to six vehicle manufactures (including FCA, Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) and one IR letter to ZF-TRW.  These IR letters resulted in ODI receiving comprehensive data from these manufacturers and suppliers. Studies of this data found that the DS84 ASIC does not have sufficient protection against negative electrical transients or electrical overstress (“EOS”) that can be generated in certain severe crashes.  An electrical transient occurs when the electrical power supplied to a circuit changes momentarily over a short duration of time.   In these severe crash cases, the crash sensors and other powered wiring can be damaged and short circuited so as to create a negative electrical transient of sufficient intensity and duration (that are outside the vehicle manufacturer's specification) to damage the ASIC before the restraint device deployment signal is received by the SRS ECU.  This damaged signal can lead to incomplete or nondeployment of the air bags and/or pretensioners.  Airbag non-deployment and/or lack of pretensioner operation can increase the risk or severity of injury in a crash.A total of 8 fatalities and 14 injuries were associated with known EOS events. The common element in all investigated manufacturers vehicles is the SRS ECU containing a DS84 ASIC manufactured by ZF-TRW.  The risk associated with the ASIC is equally shared among all OEMS involved in the investigation.  The actual real-world risk can be mitigated by other factors which were assessed by ODI during this investigation. The first mitigating factor involves protections built into the ACU design which protect the DS84 ASIC from damage.  There are multiple strategies and levels of protection employed by different OEMs that provide effective EOS mitigation.  The two most common strategies at the ACU level are circuit protection diodes on the remote senor signal lines, and current limiting resistors that protect critical components. The second mitigating factor is found at the vehicle level and involves the location and routing of the wires leading from the crash sensors to the SRS ECU.  If the wires are well protected in a crash and are not routed with other power wires carrying large currents, the risk for an EOS event is significantly reduced or eliminated. These design specific factors combine to produce a spectrum of risk for the vehicles equipped with ACUs using the DS84 ASIC.  Given the many of years of field exposure, it is possible to divide the subject population into two groups; vehicles which have experienced EOS events, and vehicles which have not experienced EOS field events. Four of the six OEMs involved in this investigation have experienced EOS field events on at least one of their models equipped with a DS84 ASIC.  All vehicle models (including the Toyota models identified in the Failure Report Summary of the opening resume for this investigation) with field events have been recalled.  In an abundance of caution, ODI kept this investigation open five years to monitor field performance and did not identify any field events on vehicles not included in existing safety recalls. Given the spectrum of risk identified in this investigation and that all vehicles with a demonstrated unreasonable risk have been recalled, ODI is closing this investigation. ODI is closing this investigation with the following manufacturer safety recalls: 16V-668, 18E-043, 18V-137, 18V-363, and 20V-024.  With the recall actions taken by the subject vehicle and equipment manufacturers, this investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exists on other model or model year vehicles outside of the recall scopes. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

Go deeper into Honda CR-V problems